Poll: Which Concept Would You Rather Drive?

View Comments

• After seeing bo0th vehicles up close at the Detroit Auto Show, I would have to stick with the TRU 140. Even though I'm a bit older (42), and love "retro" vehicles, I feel the 130 is trying too hard to be a modern take on an old car. It doesn't seem like it'd be a very decent ride, especially here in Michigan in a normal winter.

  Ther modern styling of the 140 is much more desirable to me, but hey, it's all just a matter of taste and personal preference. For what it's worth, my 22 y/o son said the 130 "...looks like a bad afterthought of old cars mixed with a new camaro", and it's as he put it, "butt ugly". He agrees with me on the 140.

  That all being said, I'm sure there would be a market for both of them, and would like to see them both get built.

  • Are you basing that on looks or what you actually would want to drive.... from a driver's point of view?

• I prefer the CODE 130R
  But I wonder what normal people think
  I like rear drive and small turbo engines in American cars, I thought the Mustang SVO, Corvair Corsa,Cosworth Vega, Fiero GT,Solstice and Sky were cool; and I dig road racing and drifting.
  Most folks these days don't seem so open minded, American muscle car fans would rather have a V8 CTS-V ,Camaro, Mustang, Challanger,Charger,300 in the garage ,for weekend roadtrips;and a small efficient front driver for the commute to work.
  Ah.. and than there is the fear that like the Solstce and Sky that this platform varient will become obsolete after a few years because it do'snt sell 300,000 units plus a year.
  Annyway I hope the CODE makes it to production and I look forword to seeing it on SPEED CHANNEL in SCCA and Formula Drift.
  Can't wait to see the RED BULL livery, I bet it will look HOT!

• I don't see why the FWD or RWD couldn't be interchangable between the two.
  I would personally love to drive a RWD 140, but that's not answering the question, really.
  The styling of the 140 really draws me in. (I still wish they displayed it w/ a different color - deep blue maybe? The white mutes the body lines.)
  At the end of the day, I think I would still go for the 140. I like the 130 RWD, but the styling is just not my taste. After driving the hell out of my 2001 GP, FWD is not 'that' bad for me. If I'm going to drive the hell out of it, then that means running 70mph+ in the rain on the way to/from work like i do now.

• I think GM should build both of them, RWD and FWD market are slightly different, yes they would get cross shopped to a certain percentage, but they will also bring non-GM customers from Honda, Subaru etc. as long as these cars stay high performance vehicles.

• @ Alex...All things equal, I would have to stick w/ the 140. As a former Trooper (won't say which state), I have driven RWD vehicles for years, primarily the older Caprice's & unfortunately Crown Vic's. If you are going to drive on a track, or want strictly performance car, than sure RWD would hold up better under 130 MPH+ conditions than an FWD car ever could. However, for a daily driver that won't be used in a pursuit, I believe the FWD is much more practical. Although, I have to agree with Brian above, I don't see why RWD & FWD couldn't be interchangeable.

  Honestly, if the roles were reversed and the 130 was FWD & the 140 were RWD, I believe I'd still have to take the 140. I like the solstice & moreso the Sky, and would love to see a new roadster along the same lines, the Miray concept at the NAIAS seemed like a viable, marketable vehicle to me to replace the 2 that are gone. However, I feel that if Chevy wants a winning RWD other than the Camaro & 'Vette, the smart $ would be on a Chevelle or Monte Carlo reincarnation-something that would transfer well over to NASCAR to replace the dated Impala. Retro is fine, like the Camaro, if it's done right, which I personally don't feel the 130 is. It looks like too much of a jumbled combination of at least 2 or 3 or more cars that were smushed together to make one that works.

  As far as ride, handling and driving dynamics, such as adding the 'Vette's & Caddi's magnetic ride suspension, there's no reason a FWD can't be a winner.

• what happened to the comments thread? i could have sworn it was MUCH larger. did some get deleted?

  • I think you're referring to this poll & thread:
    http://gmauthority.com/blog/2012/01/poll-which-do-you-like-better-130r-or-140s/

• Personaly I like athletic front wheel drive cars, I love older Celicas, I personally would like either of these though, the tru140 is very nice looking and reminds me of a fun athletic FWD coupe.

• I kind of like the 140s better

• I liked the Celica too. The intended audiance could not get over the fact that it said TOYOTA on the badge, as opposed to HONDA or MITSU; you know young gearhead car brands. Great car, narrow minded public; epic fail/ object lesson.

• I like the 140 out of looks. Unless you're driving on a track or on the road unlawfully, it's hard to really make use of the power and suspension in a lot of today's RWD performance cars. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I see nothing wrong with a car having great aerodynamics like this one but also with a wide range of power train options. Would we get it? Probably not. Unless it's a boring sedan, car makers tend to cater to a specific need rather than design a car with broad appeal. Case in point -- how many hatchbacks out there even come with an optional roof rack? Just a few, and certainly none domestic. The thinking is that if you want to put something on the roof you also want an SUV, even though the demand on space is higher with the hatch. The same goes for cars that look like the 140S. If you want something that looks like that you also want a big, powerful engine. Never mind the aerodynamics that would make sense in any vehicle, or the looks that tend to attract hot-looking young women.